6 ms·
The only reason I see is if it captured citizens that don't want the fact that they were in a NYPD Precinct livestreamed.
by SketchySeaBeast 3y ago
The only reason I see is if it captured citizens that don't want the fact that they were in a NYPD Precinct livestreamed.
- stronglikedan 3y agoIt's a public place. If a separate law gave them a right to privacy then the police have to make accommodations to bring them into the station privately, like through a back door.
- AnimalMuppet 3y agoMy position is that it is good that everyone going into the precinct should be publicly noticed. Nobody goes in through "a back door". Nobody goes into police custody without the public knowing. Yes, this gets embarrassing. But it keeps people from silently "disappearing". If they're in police custody, everybody knows (or can find out).
- SketchySeaBeast 3y agoWhich is fine if you're being arrested, not great if you're trying to report domestic violence. I get it, it's better like this, but it could have secondary side effects for some people.
- KennyBlanken 3y agoTrying to report any crime where the victim fears repercussions. Organized crime, crime by an employer, etc.
- Kye 3y agoEvery law is a balance with some compromises toward or against personal and public good. Some of that balance should include alternate channels for reporting things with hazards like this.
- AniseAbyss 3y ago[dead]
- fishtacos 3y agoTo echo the previous reply, it's a ridiculous stance to defend absolving of documentation of their presence when all these situations involved taxpayer money. Whether it's an officer, a congressman,Trump under subpoena, or a random drunk ... if they are being charged with something, they are in the public record. That public record includes public documentation of where they were taken, why, and sufficient documentation to allow both the public to be informed and for intervention in case of abuse of power. Otherwise, we don't live in a functional democracy. This is a good decision. It's sad the PD is appealing it, but not unexpected.
- tzs 3y agoPeople often go to police stations for reasons other than being charged with something.
- koolba 3y ago> That public record includes public documentation of where they were taken, why, and sufficient documentation to allow both the public to be informed and for intervention in case of abuse of power. The problem for the specific case of being charged with something, or even a step before when someone is brought in for questioning, is enough to tarnish the person's reputation for life. If someone is brought in for questioning on suspicion of spousal battery, rape, or kiddie porn, that stink is not going to subside even if the officers or prosecutors later admit to being completely wrong.
- fishtacos 3y agoThat's a socio-cultural issue, not something related to what the law requires because it's the just thing to do. Otherwise, we'd have no knowledge of anything. We fought so hard (US-specific) for the FOIA and that barely even works. Crawling backwards into a decades of state and police corruption isn't the answer. I get what you're saying. There is an imbalance of power between the common citizen and state. Wanting transparency instead of the alternative because of abuse of power is precisely why this should be the norm.
- barbazoo 3y ago
- barrkel 3y agoWhat if a private organization set up cameras observing everyone walking every street and avenue, and stored facial eigenvectors of all the people walking there. It could then set up shop as a service, and given a picture of someone's face, tell you when and where they went anywhere on foot in NYC. It's all public, right?
- wongarsu 3y agoThat's what companies do with license plate scanners. I don't think faces would be substantially different in the eyes of the law. I agree that it's an issue. In Europe there is some expectation of privacy even in public and what you describe would be illegal.
- PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago> In Europe there is some expectation of privacy even in public which is reason #1367 why the UK had to leave the EU. Thanks, I'll be here all week, until I die.
- jakupovic 3y ago[flagged]
- DoesntMatter22 3y agoIn thr US that is probably legal currently
- roywiggins 3y agoIt's being done for police, but I don't think there's any legal bar to selling this data to the public instead. https://www.404media.co/fusus-ai-cameras-took-over-town-america/ https://www.404media.co/fusus-ai-cameras-took-over-town-amer...
- usea 3y agoThe scenario you're describing is already the status quo.
- omginternets 3y agoI think there's room for protecting people's public image so long as they have not been convicted.
- heliodor 3y agoAre you saying that every crime punishment should automatically include loss of privacy? Cause that's what your statement sounds like.
- omginternets 3y agoThat's a very bizarre reading of this thread of conversation.
- heliodor 3y agoI didn't read it well, I guess. "Protecting people's public image" sounds much broader than whether an arrest or conviction is public record.
- AnimalMuppet 3y agoEvery crime conviction is a public record, so that ship has sailed.
- themaninthedark 3y agoI would say that we want to know what crimes our government is convicting people of. Otherwise, you can have the government arrest and convict some one of "secret" charges, perhaps in "secret" courts with "secret" evidence. The convicted just disappeared. I think we had something like that happen before, it caused a bit of upset.
- AniseAbyss 3y ago[dead]
- tick_tock_tick 3y agoI mean pretty much that's a cornerstone of our legal system. There's a strong bias against hidden courts where someone may be convicted in secret and punished in secret.
- oneplane 3y agoThe public place doctrine is uniquely weird (and American) in that regard. Being seen or heard by others in a public place should not mean that you, as a private person, also gets recorded.
- JohnFen 3y agoI agree. I think that US law is actively harmful in this regard. It should be possible to be in public spaces without having to worry about being recorded, either by authorities or other people.
- ultrarunner 3y agoThis reverses the subject, though: even if we grant that private civilians should have a (possibly limited) expectation of privacy in public, civilians acting in a public capacity, like the police, should not. Given the enormous power they have to act outside the law with impunity, removing the only check on that power— transparency into their conduct— would be a mistake. One only need to consider any of the many times police have been caught outright lying by video surfacing afterward to understand why.
- JohnFen 3y agoI agree entirely. We give police extraordinary power over us, and it seems completely reasonable that they have little expectation of privacy when using those powers.
- qwertox 3y agoWhat a simplistic view of the world. "It's a public place.". Do I want to be there? No. Do I have to be there? Yes. Oh, the back door, right. And don't forget to make the appointment. Fact is, if I'm being there as a private citizen dealing with private matters, I don't want some person hanging around there filming me. And at least in Europe I have the right to expect this.
- JackFr 3y agoWhat about crime victims?
- themaninthedark 3y agoWhat if the mob is paying people to film inside the Precinct?